The charade of doing well by doing good

Winners Take All
THE ELITE CHARADE OF CHANGING THE WORLD

Anand Ghiridhas has done a great job with his new book. He has set up the context for understanding the duality government elites. I've picked only several key statements. The whole book is well written and gives a lot of examples (US-based of course).

Many millions of Americans, on the left and right, feel one thing in common: that the game is rigged against people like them. Perhaps this is why we hear constant condemnation of “the system,” for it is the system that people expect to turn fortuitous developments into societal progress. Instead, the system—in America and around the world—has been organized to siphon the gains from innovation upward, such that the fortunes of the world’s billionaires now grow at more than double the pace of everyone else’s, and the top 10 percent of humanity have come to hold 90 percent of the planet’s wealth.

Some elites faced with this kind of gathering anger have hidden behind walls and gates and on landed estates, emerging only to try to seize even greater political power to protect themselves against the mob. But in recent years a great many fortunate people have also tried something else, something both laudable and self-serving: They have tried to help by taking ownership of the problem.

What is at stake is whether the reform of our common life is led by governments elected by and accountable to the people, or rather by wealthy elites claiming to know our best interests. We must decide whether, in the name of ascendant values such as efficiency and scale, we are willing to allow democratic purpose to be usurped by private actors who often genuinely aspire to improve things but, first things first, seek to protect themselves. Yes, government is dysfunctional at present. But that is all the more reason to treat its repair as our foremost national priority.

Claiming for global regulation of genome editing

Genome editing and human reproduction

The Nuffield Council of Bioethics release last July a key document on Bioethics of Genetics. Now that a chinese "scientist" claims to have edited the genomes of twin baby girls is the right moment to read it. And the key principles are:

Principle 1: The welfare of the future person

Gametes or embryos that have been subject to genome editing procedures (or that are derived from cells that have been subject to such procedures) should be used only where the procedure is carried out in a manner and for a purpose that is intended to secure the welfare of and is consistent with the welfare of a person who may be born as a consequence of treatment using those cells.

Principle 2: Social justice and solidarity

The use of gametes or embryos that have been subject to genome editing procedures (or that are derived from cells that have been subject to such procedures) should be permitted only in circumstances in which it cannot reasonably be expected to produce or exacerbate social division or the unmitigated marginalisation or disadvantage of groups within society.

New concerns are arising from CRISPR application and international regulations would be necessary to cope with them. The Association for responsible research and innovation in genome editing is precisely requesting this effort. The only precedents are the Declaration of Human Rights and it seems that it will not be an easy task to fulfill.

PS. Check the former post on Nuffield reports on this topic

Ageing policies, a long way ahead

WILL POPULATION AGEING SPELL THE END OF THE WELFARE STATE?

A new book by WHO provides some insights about the impact of ageing. The frame of the message is built around these questions:

1. What are the implications of population ageing for health and long-term care needs and costs?
2. What are the implications of population ageing for paid and unpaid work?
3. What are the implications of population ageing for the acceptability, equity and
effectiveness of financing care and consumption?
4. The policy options: How can decision-makers respond to population ageing?
5. Building on what we know and improving the evidence base for policy-making.

And these are the policies they suggest:

I. Policies to promote healthy and active ageing
II. Policies to promote cost-effective health and long-term care interventions
III. Policies that support paid and unpaid work
IV. Policies to support acceptable, equitable and efficient funding and income transfers

This is just a start. Since ageing is a multidimensional issue, governmental policies should embrace a wider multisector strategy (that the book forgets). There is a long way ahead.

Doctor Prats - Caminem junts

Driving evidence-based health policy

Driving Better Health Policy: “It’s the Evidence, Stupid”

Baicker and Chandra are backing an evidence-based health policy. I reviewed it in a previous post. Now the Uwe Reinhardt Memorial Lecture insists on it.

Speaking in favor of evidence-based health policy can be more controversial than one might think. Health policy analysts, health services researchers, and economists in particular often get in trouble by trying to quantify what many hold as unquantifiable and trying to put a price tag on what many think should be priceless.

This is the ouline of the lecture:

WHAT IS AND IS NOT A POLICY
Slogans are Not Policies
Differentiating Between Goals and Policies
EVIDENCE IS INHERENTLY EMPIRICAL
Evidence is Rarely Straightforward
Fact Patterns Alone Do Not Reveal Policy Effects
WORKING TO BASE POLICY ON EVIDENCE
Separating Evidence from Preferences
Using Evidence to Inform Policy

And these are the take-away messages:

• Serious policy assessment requires a detailed description of the policy—slogans are not policies.
• Clearly articulating and differentiating between goals and policies is crucial to evaluating the most effective way to achieve policy goals.
• Evidence is often mixed or ambiguous. Researchers should not let their own policy preferences bias their interpretation or synthesis of the evidence. 
• Evidence does not speak for itself. Researchers need to dedicate effort to timely, accessible, reliable translation.

Agreed. Unfortunately, our close politicians are not interested in evidence if it goes against their ideological criteria. Therefore, claiming evidence for health policy is useless, unless the premise of "politicians will take into account evidence" is really credible. The lecture forgot this "minor" issue, the cognitive biases of health policy.

Josep Segú

On free genetic sequencing, opioids and the Hockney portrait

Selected links

FROM GENE EDITING TO A.I., HOW WILL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFORM HUMANITY?
FIVE BIG THINKERS — REGINA BARZILAY, GEORGE CHURCH, JENNIFER EGAN, CATHERINE MOHR AND SIDDHARTHA MUKHERJEE — PUZZLE OVER THE FUTURE OF THE FUTURE.

Mortality risk, insurance, and the value of life

Opioid nation by Marcia Angell

Genetics Start-Up Wants to Sequence People’s Genomes for Free

THESE DNA STARTUPS WANT TO PUT ALL OF YOU ON THE BLOCKCHAIN

Hockney

In favour of positive discrimination for troublemakers

IN DEFENSE OF TROUBLEMAKERS: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business
L'Illusion du consensus

Charlan Nemeth has done a great job explaining the role of dissent in life and organizations. Her last book shows exactly what happens when we emphasize excessively the consensus.

Rather than worry about appeasing others or making sure we do not offend by disagreeing with them, the message of this book is that there is importance and value in authentic debate. The idea that dissent causes irritation and conflict is only partially accurate. Dissent and debate also bring joy and invigorate discussion. Best of all, genuine dissent and debate not only make us think but make us think well. We become free to “know what we know.” We make better decisions, find more creative solutions, and are better able to render justice.

The topic has strong connections with political correctness and hate. The book by Chantal Mouffe addresses this issue with precision.

Afin d’éviter toute confusion, je devrais peut-être préciser que, contrairement à certains penseurs postmodernes qui envisagent un pluralisme sans aucune frontière, je ne crois pas qu’une politique démocratique doive considérer comme légitimes toutes les revendications formulées dans un société donnée. Le pluralisme que je défends exige de discriminer parmi ces demandes celles que l’on peut accepter comme faisant partie du débat démocratique et celles qui doivent en être exclues. Une société démocratique ne peut pas traiter comme des adversaires légitimes ceux qui remettent en question ses institutions de base. L’approche agonistique ne prétend pas englober toutes les différences ni abolir toutes formes d’exclusion. Mais les exclusions sont envisagées en termes politiques et non pas en termes moraux. Certaines revendications se trouvent exclues de fait, non parce qu’elles sont « mauvaises », mais parce qu’elles défient les institutions constitutives de l’association politique démocratique. Entendons-nous bien, la nature des institutions fait aussi partie du débat agonistique, mais pour qu’un tel débat puisse avoir lieu, l’existence d’un espace symbolique partagé est nécessaire. C’est cette idée que j’ai voulu exprimer quand j’ai soutenu, dans le chapitre 1, que la démocratie nécessitait un « consensus conflictuel » : consensus sur les valeurs éthico-politiques de liberté et d’égalité pour tous mais dissensus sur leur interprétation. Il faut par conséquent tracer une ligne de démarcation entre ceux qui rejettent complètement ces valeurs et ceux qui, tout en les acceptant, en défendent des interprétations opposées.

Troublemakers as dissenters in politics are welcome. Though, if they want to undermine democracy, then forget any positive discrimination. This is not their place.

PS. Bad blood wins the Business book of the year contest.

Oriol Romaní

"Going Dutch" in regulating the mandatory coverage

Can universal access be achieved in a voluntary private health insurance market? Dutch private insurers caught between competing logics

Healthcare in The Netherlands is widely seen as a benchmark for many scholars. Though it is expensive, it combines mandatory coverage with the choice of private insurance coverage. Sounds of interest, though the devil is in the details.
This article explains the main issues surrounding such model:

The Dutch history of voluntary private health insurance shows both the strengths and weaknesses of public–private health insurance systems, especially in the context of a rising demand for (universal) access to health care. As we have explained, social and private health insurance are based on two divergent logics of different institutional orders (the market and the state).
The Dutch case strongly  suggests that universal access can only be achieved in a competitive individual private health insurance market if this market is effectively regulated. The tension between adverse selection and universal access that had vexed the Dutch private health insurance industry throughout its existence was resolved by combining elements from both the insurance logic and the welfare state logic: i.e. an individual mandate, guaranteed issue, community-rated premiums, income-related subsidies and a sophisticated risk equalization scheme .
Achieving universal access in a competitive private health insurance market is institutionally complex and requires broad political and societal support.

Therefore, unless there is a smart regulator, forget it...

PS. Spanish embroglio at Marginal revolution.

PS. How is Obamacare doing?

From Lisa Eckdahl latest album